This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
All I know is that whomever makes the AID virus will be very, very rich.
If it does wind up being the case that the first effective vaccine is aggressively protected by patents, it will be an interesting test case for that whole issue of patents-vs-public good.
Who
ever owns the patents will naturally be under pressure to do the right thing, and the poorer and more afflicted countries of the world will be under pressure to use generic substitutes if that's possible..
Should a vaccine / treatment be covered under copyright law? Does it harm anybody if we distribute the chemical makeup of the vaccine? After all, it doesn't cost the company anything... ;)
/toungeincheek
I don't think it's too much of an issue. Whoever owns them will make a bucketload even if they do make it accessible. Stars around the world will set up charities to buy the vaccines and ship them over to the poorer countries, so you'd figure that even at developed world prices, the poorer countries will still get their treatments one way or another.
Post by
yukonjack
All I know is that whomever makes the AID virus will be very, very rich.
And all I know is whomever makes the vaccine is likely already very very rich.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
All I know is that whomever makes the AID virus will be very, very rich.
If it does wind up being the case that the first effective vaccine is aggressively protected by patents, it will be an interesting test case for that whole issue of patents-vs-public good.
Who
ever owns the patents will naturally be under pressure to do the right thing, and the poorer and more afflicted countries of the world will be under pressure to use generic substitutes if that's possible..
If the person who cures AIDS is made to give away their cure to "do the right thing", then the next disease that comes along will be a lot less incentive to cure.
A person is worth the work they do, and a supply is worth the demand.
Post by
Squishalot
If you'll look up the difference between copyrights and patents, I'll tell you.
edit: :P
Oh blah, I was in a rush. Point still stands, unless you're suggesting that patents should have more legal protection than something that is copyrighted.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I don't know what point you mean - aside from both involving intellectual property, patent and copyright are not very similar. You ask: "Does it harm anybody if we distribute the chemical makeup of the vaccine?" but it is thanks to patents that we are guaranteed the right to do exactly that. Remember, the whole point of patents is that the inventor must make the details of their invention public.
... and allow people to produce it without reference / compensation back to the inventor? I didn't think I needed to spell out what was intended to be an amusing aside. Never mind, it's not funny anymore.
competition with generics
Generics aren't up for competition until the patent expires. Is that really an issue?
Post by
gamerunknown
There's a chance the vaccine will be developed in the public sphere and if not, rights could probably be purchased by the Gates foundation.
Edit: Lots of people work towards cures for altruistic reasons, or even logical self-interest (world without AIDS will be better for me and mine than one with, so preserving AIDS by not eradicating it has a higher cost than the fiduciary one incurred by making the vaccine public property). There's other ways to incentivise research too: just give grants or subsidise it.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
#26: An AIDS Vaccine Finally Within Reach?
If it's profitable, it'll come out...otherwise, meh to it for most of the big companies; they'll keep making their botox and other drugs to keep people young and beautiful.
But honestly; I actually can't see a vaccine for it ever being 'seriously' considered, since we still don't have a cure for AIDs either(*tinfoil hat* well maybe*tinfoil hat*).
Post by
Squishalot
Generics aren't up for competition until the patent expires. Is that really an issue?
Is it an issue now with cocktails? (Hint: yes)
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about now. What exactly do you see is the 'issue' here? Preferably in more than one line, so that I don't need to try to read between your words?
Post by
MyTie
If the person who cures AIDS is made to give away their cure to "do the right thing", then the next disease that comes along will be a lot less incentive to cure.
A person is worth the work they do, and a supply is worth the demand.
Huh? The issues involved here are the same as with current AIDS cocktails - competition with generics and imposed licensing by governments (e.g. India). Nobody is likely to "make" pharma "give stuff away".
I feel like what I wanted to communicate wasn't understood, however I have no idea how to explain it any plainer than I did. Since I'm at a loss for how to productively respond to this, we'll just have to take this one at face value.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
The "issue" with what, with competition from generics? If so, then exactly as I said - a vaccine would presumably face the same issues that have happened with antiretrovirals (cocktails). I'm assuming here that you know or can find out generally what the issues have been with antiretrovirals. If not, suffice to say that the price of patented AIDS treatments has dropped a hundredfold since 2001, because of competition (critics would say "price-busting") from generics.
Thank you for clarifying your position. From what I understand though, said patented AIDS treatments had a number of years prior to 2001 where they were able to charge a price allowing them to obtain returns on their research investment, even if they were pressured into discounting by the government. That's what I don't quite fully understand about your position - the process was followed reasonably well: drug companies develop miracle drug, sell it at high prices until their patent expires, then generics pull the price down. Drug companies know that they've only got a limited amount of time to make supernormal profits on their products, and I assume, would have factored that into their investment decisions.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Sure, that's the idea - except that patents typically last at least 14 or 20 years, while the earliest of the drugs we're talking about came out around 1996. That's why I told you this was an issue, the pressure from generics happened long before the patents expired.
The 20 years typically commences from the date you start clinical trials, not the date it becomes available for retail sale. If it takes you a significantly long time to get through your trial period, then that's going to eat away at your potential sales. I'm not sure if that's what's happened in this instance, but I could see that as being a key factor in the short sale->expiry period, considering that something like an AIDS treatment would have a pretty long trial period.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#27: Are genetically modified foods safe for individuals to consume?
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.